According to Climate Energy Finance (CEF): "In the first half of 2025, new wind and solar power capacity additions in China were 10 times more than thermal capacity and made up 90% of new adds. Renewables are playing a key role in decarbonising power generation."

"While thermal power—predominantly coal—still accounted for over 60% of electricity output, its share continues to decline as clean energy capacity scales up, even as China’s economy continues to grow very strongly, lifting overall energy demand growth."

So often we have commentators using China's massive use of thermal energy for electricity generation as a rebuttal to reasons to move towards renewables.
But: "Even as China continues to build new thermal capacity, the average utilisation rate fell to a record low of 46% with thermal generation."

The whole world is moving to renewables and CEF comments that to "realise our renewable energy potential, we need urgent reform. If we don’t, Australia risks becoming the Kodak economy of the future."

Deniers love to point to China’s coal use as if it means renewables aren’t worth pursuing, but this data blows that out of the water.

Yes, coal is still a big slice of China’s generation, but it’s shrinking.

And the really telling stat is the utilisation rate of thermal power plants dropping to a record low. That’s a sign they’re being sidelined more often as wind and solar take over the hours when they’re cheapest.

Meanwhile, China is adding more renewable capacity in six months than Australia has installed in its entire history.

If we’re still debating whether renewables are “worth it” while other nations are scaling at breakneck speed, we’re not just behind - we’re setting ourselves up to be irrelevant.

The name Blockbuster comes to mind. In which case, a “Kodak economy” would be something we’d be aspiring to.

This "data" has either been cherrypicked, or is not correct. This graph from Our World in Data puts the lie to it https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=~CHN. The contribution of wind and solar is miniscule, and oil, coal and gas are all ramping up at an extraordinary rate.

From this graph China is obviously not going to be contributing to NetZero anytime in the next 100 years or more.

Dear Oh Dear Graham, this does not even warrant a WTF?

Maybe you would prefer some data from the US Energy Information Administration. Their data lags so their most recent information is for 2023.


Let's give it a shot: China's generation of electricity from fossil fuels from 2019 - 2023 went from 1,191 million KW to 1,390 an increase of 16.7%.

Not really the "ramping up" of thermal fuels that Graham suggests.

In the same time renewables went from 759 million KW to 1,454 an increase of 92%.

There is nothing miniscule about this. China is on target to install half of expected global solar installations this year.

So this US source agrees with the CEF source - Even as China continues to build new thermal capacity, the average utilisation rate fell - to a record low of 46% according to CEF.

The CEF report did not make any assertions about Net Zero. However, on 9 July, Chief Executive of the Smart Energy Council, John Grimes stated that Zero emissions capacity delivered over 40% of China’s electricity.

Somehow I think the rapid and relentless march towards renewables has caught many off guard.

Graham,

That chart shows all energy use, not just electricity, so of course coal looks huge. It includes industrial uses like steel and cement production, chemicals, and district heating.

Sectors where renewables aren’t yet dominant.

Regardless, the rate of change is visible - which makes it even more telling that you’ve chosen to focus on totals instead. It doesn’t contradict the current trend - it hides it behind unrelated legacy energy uses and a misleading y-axis scale.

It’s like measuring the rise of streaming by pointing at how many VHS tapes still exist.

Now THAT is cherry-picking.

Nice graph GY. Kudos. It might be interesting to compare the similar graphs for Western and European nations. I think what GY is implying is that the point of the targets is to increase the renewables in proportion to total use. It appears that China's total energy use is on an exponential curve over time. That's not to say that other nations aren't also on an exponential curve but it's something to look at. And it's not to say that good equals renewables.

Canem Malum,

Apparently the graph was confusing for you, too.

Kudos.

China is heading towards becoming the worlds largest economy by 2026/30, partly due to its energy policy of increased use of renewals, supplemented by a decreasing demand for fossil fuels. The Americans under Trump with his mad economic policies, and his misled belief that America should rely on expensive coal and gas, and ditch renewables, will only accelerate China's economic dominance. News for Trump 145% tariffs ain't going to do it for ya sunshine!

Liberal-aligned The Australian Institute for (No)Progress ran anti-Greens ads dressed up as unbiased opinion during the recent Federal election, after it received a $600,000 pay cheque from the Queensland coal industry. Its amazing how money shapes ones opinion.

Thanks Graham for exposing another liar and anti-everything misfit. Thanks CM.

Why is China installing so much wind and solar? In a word, overcapacity. Much of the wind and solar that China has built does not have the transmission infrastructure to connect it to the grid. Maybe China is installing so much because the rest of the world is starting to wise up to the shortcomings?

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/08/06/chinas-record-renewables-build-out-wastes-power-as-grid-lags-00493788

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/chinas-renewable-capacity-soars-utilisation-lags-data-show-2025-08-05/

Production line nuclear still a work in progress, so we will have to endure the wind and solar grid fantasists for a few more years.

Paul,

I live in one of the electorates in which the AIP's anti-Greens flyers were distributed. The campaign went down like a lead balloon here.

From what I could tell, the general feeling was one of disgust.
___

ttbn,

Could you please point to the lies have have been exposed?

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif
___

Fester,

Curtailment’s a growing pain, not a death knell. Nationally it’s under 7%, zero in big cities, and China’s already spending billions on transmission and storage to fix it. That’s what “too much clean power” looks like, and it’s a problem every country should be so lucky to have.

So here's the graph of just electricity. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?country=~CHN

Same story. Hard to discern a slow down.

There is currently 484 GW of coal planned or under construction in China, 1810 of wind and solar, about 43 of nuclear, 154 natural gas. That makes 1810 of wind and solar to 781 fossil fuel + nuclear. However, the capacity factor of wind and solar is around 30% while for the others 85% or higher, so there is actually more production to come from other sources than from wind and solar.

This begs the question - if wind and solar are the cheapest, why are they building so much fossil fuel and nuclear? Answer - because it isn't the cheapest once you take system costs, capacity utilisation and reliability into account.

Graham,

Thanks for posting the electricity-only chart, it makes the trend even clearer. Coal is flatlining, hydro and nuclear are steady, and wind and solar have been climbing like a rocket for over a decade.

Your “capacity factor” line is sleight of hand.

Wind and solar are variable, yes, but they’re far faster and cheaper to deploy, and China is adding them at several times the scale of any other source. That’s exactly how you transition off high-capacity-factor fossil fuels: you build the clean fleet until it dwarfs the dirty one.

And “if they’re the cheapest, why build fossil and nuclear?”

Because no modern grid bets everything on one source. Reliability and diversification aren’t proof renewables don’t work, they’re why you plan the phase-out instead of tripping the breaker on day one.

The chart does indeed back the “same story,” just not the one you're thinking of.

Graham,
In your first response you used the term "lie".

ttbn refers to (I assume) me as the O.P., as a liar but does not articulate where the lies are.

Now that you have stated "That makes 1810 of wind and solar to 781 fossil fuel + nuclear." Convenient that you have included nuclear in with thermal generation. I would like to know what the lie is.

Did I lie? Well no, I used direct quotes form a source.
Did the source lie? I doubt it and you have not challenged their data collection method or their data directly. I then used a different source that showed similar data.

You now seem to agree with the CEF claim that "Even as China continues to build new thermal capacity, the average utilisation rate fell."

So the matter of what is the lie and who is who is the liar remain unanswered. That's pretty strong terminology and needs to backed up with very compelling evidence - even on a site where most of us use aliases.

No honest person with common sense believes that wind and solar is cheap. The notion that it is represents a bigger lie than the climate "emergency" itself. Net Zero is dog of an idea anywhere now except Australia, where it is not realised that emissions are still rising in the rest of the world, and Australia's buggering up of its own economy is not going to change anything.

In the meantime, Communist China is thriving because of the Australian political class's stupidity, and the Left's increasing intent on making CCP our master.

End of story. End of Australia coming shortly.

ttbn,

Wind and solar are indeed the cheapest new sources of electricity in most of the world, including China and Australia.

Lazard’s latest report puts new utility-scale solar at $24-$96/MWh and wind at $24-$75/MWh, compared to new coal at $66-$152/MWh and gas at $39-$101/MWh, and that’s before factoring in carbon pricing or health costs from pollution.

http://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus
http://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023

The claim that “Net Zero is dead” is contradicted by actual deployment data:

- China added over 217 GW of wind and solar in 2023 alone (more than the entire installed solar capacity of the United States.)

- Global renewable capacity additions grew 50% in 2023 (the fastest growth rate in two decades.)

- The IEA projects renewables will account for over 90% of new global power capacity through 2028. IEA Renewables 2023

http://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023

As for “emissions still rising,” yes, globally they are, but the biggest driver is coal in developing economies, which is precisely why the scale and speed of China’s renewables build-out matters. Every GW of clean capacity added now is a GW not burning fossil fuels for decades.

So, if your argument is that wind and solar are “not cheap” and “not working,” please provide your figures, your methodology, and your sources. Because the world’s leading energy agencies, market analysts, and deployment data all say otherwise.

Over to you...

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif

Once again the foolishness of Australian voters can't be ignored.

They know that their electricity bills are soaring, but they still re-elected the lying bastards who said renewable energy was the cheapest; senses partly dulled by the idea that governments would continue giving them back their own money in cost of living relief payments - that will last how long with a socialist mob flinging other people's money around, willy nilly?

Even the #metoo Liberals baulk at the cost of Australian electricity.

If John O'Grady wrote ‘They're a Weird Mob’ on behalf of the fictional Italian immigrant Nino Culotta now instead of 1957, he would probably call it ‘They're a Stupid Mob’.

WTF?

ttbn states: "They know that their electricity bills are soaring."

I'll assume this statement is true. My own electricity use is heavy subsidised by my own solar panels but I am aware of increases that took place on 1st July.

But what is causing this increase? Let's look at some historical wholesale prices. In QLD the wholesale price peaked at just less than $350 per MWh in the second quarter of 2002. In the second quarter of 2025 the cost was just less than $150 per MWh.

This is a decrease in cost of around 43% and, while the price fluctuates, has averaged around this price since the fourth quarter of 2022.

At the moment in QLD the spot price is -$13. The energy companies are essentially been paid to supply electricity.

Don't blame renewables - they are responsible for the wholesale price drop.

Where I live there is only one provider. No "invisible hand of the market" here.

Please excuse my Maths - In my post above it should read a decrease of 57%

wtf

You can find the average price since 2009-2010 on the AEMO website.

https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem

The experience of renewables is one of rising electricity costs for consumers.

John,

"That’s what “too much clean power” looks like, and it’s a problem every country should be so lucky to have."

No, the Chinese curtailment was because there were no transmission lines to take the power to where it was needed, not because the power wasn't needed. In any event, curtailed power is wasted power, in theory about a third of generated energy is wasted in a stand alone wind and solar system. Waste like that is nothing to crow about, especially as nuclear power, with less curtailment, generates cheaper energy over its lifetime.

Fester

Of course I know about the AEMO site - that's where the spot price is found.

I also know from AEMO documents that the 2024 estimated levelised costs of electricity is $102 per MWh for coal, $70 per MWh for wind and $43 for solar.

Renewables are clearly less expensive than coal generation. The source you suggest to look up clearly states that.

Fester,

You’ve just confirmed it - the issue wasn’t lack of demand, it was transmission bottlenecks. That’s a grid upgrade problem, not a failure of renewables.

And no source runs 100% of the time - coal, gas, and nuclear all get curtailed too. The difference is China’s already building 30,000 km of new ultra-high-voltage lines to fix it, and the wind/solar capacity will keep cranking for decades once connected.

Got Chinese cost data showing nuclear beats wind/solar today? Lazard and the IEA say otherwise.

And as WTF has pointed out, that AEMO link doesn’t show what you’re claiming.

Their own Quarterly Energy Dynamics reports show wholesale prices spiked during the 2022 gas crisis, then fell sharply in 2023-24 as renewables’ share grew. Retail bills are driven by far more than the generation mix - network costs, retailer margins, and global fuel prices all hit long before renewables ever could.

If you’ve got AEMO data isolating renewables as the driver of higher prices, post it. Otherwise, that’s just correlation dressed up as causation.

The table I linked showed the average electricity prices since 2009. The recent spike was due to the natural gas price spike associated with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I think that coal was less influential because of long term supply contracts.

wtf's "black is really white" claim about the AEMO link is countered by John's "correlation is not causation" non sequitur. The idea that calculating the cost of energy is a statistical exercise is ludicrous. Calculating the cost of energy is an accounting exercise. It is not a complex and uncertain task undertaken by statisticians and medical researchers. It is true that future costs are never certain, but current costs, like the AEMO data I linked, are precise.

Perhaps John and wtf could treat olo as a place to share and learn? For all their contributions they never seem to learn a thing.

You seem horribly confused, Fester.

//The table I linked showed the average electricity prices since 2009.//

Correct.

Which means it shows correlation at best, not causation. You cited it immediately after claiming “the experience of renewables is one of rising electricity costs for consumers,” so if you weren’t implying causation, then your original point collapses. If you were, then my “correlation is not causation” point stands.

You can’t have it both ways.

//The recent spike was due to the natural gas price spike associated with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.//

Exactly.

Which directly undermines the idea that renewables were the driver. That’s why AEMO’s reports explicitly attribute the spike to gas prices and the subsequent fall to increasing renewable generation.

//I think that coal was less influential because of long term supply contracts.//

Possibly. But that’s beside the point.

//wtf's 'black is really white' claim about the AEMO link is countered by John's 'correlation is not causation' non sequitur.//

That’s not a non sequitur.

It’s exactly what applies when someone uses historical price data to imply causation without controlling for other factors. If you’re now claiming you weren’t blaming renewables, then you’re contradicting your own earlier comment.

//Calculating the cost of energy is an accounting exercise.//

That’s why agencies like AEMO, the IEA, and Lazard use both accounting and statistical modelling.

//It is not a complex and uncertain task undertaken by statisticians and medical researchers. It is true that future costs are never certain, but current costs, like the AEMO data I linked, are precise.//

Precise figures don’t make for precise causes.

AEMO’s data are accurate for prices, but they still require analysis to determine why those prices moved. Without that, all you have is numbers without context, which is how false narratives about renewables driving up costs get traction.

//Perhaps John and wtf could treat olo as a place to share and learn? For all their contributions they never seem to learn a thing.//

I’m happy to share and learn, but that requires dealing in accurate cause-and-effect, not conflating price movements with whichever technology one happens to dislike.

John,

As an Albo cult member you should realise that it is bad form to be rude to the punters. All I observed was that you and wtf were making contradictory observations about the AEMO data I linked. Here is a Centre for Independent Studies talk about the latest CSIRO gencost report.

https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/video/the-csiro-report-that-proves-coal-is-cheaper-than-renewables-zoe-hilton/

"It’s exactly what applies when someone uses historical price data to imply causation without controlling for other factors. If you’re now claiming you weren’t blaming renewables, then you’re contradicting your own earlier comment."

Doubling down on your dishonesty as usual. All the information is in the historical data. The information is precise and there is no need for statistical analysis. Yes, statistics are used in modelling and forecasting, but there is no need when you are counting the historical costs. The "correlation is not causation" is just another deception you have latched on to of late. It got good use by the smoking lobby to preserve profits at the cost of human lives. You may as well lie all you want to keep help keep the scam going until the proverbial hits the fan, hopefully soon.

WTF?

Fester the very first line in the CSIRO final 2024-25 GenCost report is:
"The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly."

The very first line.

Ad hominems only weaken your position further, Fester.

//As an Albo cult member you should realise that it is bad form to be rude to the punters.//

Disagreeing with you isn’t “rude.” Calling me an “Albo cult member” while dodging data is, however.

//All I observed was that you and wtf were making contradictory observations about the AEMO data I linked.//

No contradiction exists unless you can quote where either of us said something mutually exclusive. “Correlation is not causation” doesn’t contradict “prices have moved” - it clarifies that movements don’t prove your chosen cause.

//Here is a Centre for Independent Studies talk about the latest CSIRO gencost report.//

Your own link’s numbers show wind and solar, even when fully firmed, are already close to new black coal costs in 2024 and cheaper by 2030. The “coal is cheaper” spin comes from cherry-picking the 90% renewables scenario midpoint while ignoring the full range in the same report.

//All the information is in the historical data… no need for statistical analysis.//

Historical prices are precise; historical causes are not. The AEMO table shows numbers, not causes. That’s why causal analysis is needed, otherwise it’s like declaring “umbrellas cause rain” because they appear together in the data.

//Counting costs isn’t the dispute…//

Exactly.

The leap from “costs have risen” to “renewables caused it” ignores global fuel prices, network investments, retailer margins, and market design.

//The “correlation is not causation” is just another deception…//

That’s an association fallacy.

“It got good use by the smoking lobby” doesn’t make the phrase false. It’s a basic principle in economics, epidemiology, and physics because it’s valid logic, not PR.

//You may as well lie…//

That’s just invective.

If you have data showing renewables directly increased Australia’s electricity costs after controlling for other variables, post it.

Otherwise, all you’ve done is dress correlation up as causation and hope no one notices.

The CSIRO has been caught out again. It found that black coal produces the cheapest power at $111 per kW hour, but it didn't want that known to the dopey public; nor did it want it known that the codswallop about how "cheap" wind and solar is refers only to a period, way into the future, AFTER all the massively expensive infrastructure, means of getting the power to consumers and reparations for damage done, have been paid for - by consumers, and after the economy has been rooted.

But all you folk, talking through your arses and fighting like school kids, get a life, or go back to w.nking privately.

You might want to double-check that unit, ttbn.

//black coal produces the cheapest power at $111 per kW hour//

$111/kWh would make Australian electricity hundreds of times more expensive than it actually is. The CSIRO figure is $111 per MWh - a thousand times lower - and it’s right there in the report.

No “hiding” required.

//wind and solar is… only cheap way into the future AFTER infrastructure etc…//

No.

The GenCost tables already include transmission and firming in their “fully costed” scenarios. That’s why they give two figures: variable-only and fully firmed.

Even with all that included, wind and solar are competitive with new coal today and cheaper within the decade.

So no, the “dopey public” isn’t being shielded from anything. The numbers are public, you’ve just misread them.

WTF?

ttbn states: "how "cheap" wind and solar is refers only to a period, way into the future."

AEMO documents show that the 2024 estimated levelised costs of electricity is $102 per MWh for coal, $70 per MWh for wind and $43 for solar. That's last year not some point in the future.

Now AEMO uses the CSIRO calculations and the CSIRO shows a range of values while AEMO summarises this into one number.

CSIRO in their final 2024-25 GenCost report states: ""The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly."

ttbn seems to be getting a little emotional again. It's time to be reminded again ttbn - the facts don't care about your feelings.

Hi WTF,

You are not reading between the lines, sure the very first visible line says; "The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly." Now that's very ambiguous, if you read the invisible line it says, just the opposite. has that cleared it up for you, Fester understands it that way.

Hello Paul,
Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Just to clear things up for the pedantic. That first line appears on the introductory webpage for the report. But the findings are repeated throughout the report so it is almost impossible not to get the message.

Now Fester would have us view the CIS analysis on the findings. Essentially a push-for-nuclear organisation.

I for one would not discount an energy future that included nuclear but that is not what this thread is about. Plenty has been said about the cost and logistics about nuclear on OLO over the last few weeks so maybe Fester could start his own thread if he is still confused.

But Fester did get this correct when he said "but current costs, like the AEMO data I linked, are precise."

And once more just in case AEMO states:"The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly."

ttbn- "black coal produces the cheapest power at $111 per kW hour"

Answer- No surprise to me. Kero and petrol (7-9 Carbon atoms per molecule) are also very efficient because of their high energy density also carbon dominant organic chemicals. Ethanol also has a relatively high energy density (2 carbon atoms per molecule) and it can be produced by plant sources. These chemicals with long carbon chains seem to be correlated with high energy density. I find myself referring to the Energy Density Table by Wikipedia a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table

Diamonds appear to have an extremely high energy density due to it's packed carbon crystaline structure- not that most people would want to burn diamonds. Pure silicon having a similar allotope is probably comparable.

From Search Assist AI

Energy Density Comparison

The energy density of diamond combustion can be compared to other carbon-based materials. Here’s a table summarizing the energy density of diamond and other common fuels:
Material Energy Density (kJ/mol)
Diamond 397.3
Coal ~24.0
Gasoline ~31.5
Conditions for Burning

Ignition Temperature: Diamonds require a high ignition temperature of about 900 °C (1650 °F) to burn in air.
Pressure: The combustion occurs at atmospheric pressure.

Summary

Burning diamond is a high-energy process, releasing more energy per mole than many common fuels. However, it requires specific conditions, including high temperatures and sufficient oxygen, to initiate and sustain the combustion.

If we burned diamonds rather than coal the volume of the transport could be 10x smaller, but for a similar weight, and cheaper transport (because of wind resistance and other factors). But our engines would need to be redesigned to handle the different fuel.

Kudos Kid and ttbn

You pair are real wack jobs. the debate is over, wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy production, taking all factors into consideration, that's indisputable. All you old fossils are doing is pissing in the wind, arguing from your ideological view point, believing all this renewable nonsense is some Marxist conspiracy, when all it is, is a scientific fact.

John

"Disagreeing with you isn’t “rude.” Calling me an “Albo cult member” while dodging data is, however."

Repeatedly lying to the forum is your mo. It is rude and disrespectful, and you deserve to be called out for it.

"No contradiction exists unless you can quote where either of us said something mutually exclusive."

Um, wtf said the link showed prices falling. You repeated your "correlation is not causation" lie, acknowledging the data showed a rising price, so yes, you do contradict one another.

"That’s why causal analysis is needed"

The information can be obtained. It is an accounting exercise, not statistical inference.

"“It got good use by the smoking lobby” doesn’t make the phrase false. It’s a basic principle in economics, epidemiology, and physics because it’s valid logic, not PR."

Correlation is used to determine a relation between apparently unrelated things. For smoking and tobacco use, the challenge is to show what caused someone's disease. Determining this by medical testing is often impossible, especially with cancer, so statistical methods are needed. In contrast, determining the cost of wind and solar is a matter or doing the sums, so it is not a correlation.

You're an absolute shonk, John. It is no surprise to see you beating the drum for the wind and solar scammers.

It appears you’re getting a little too emotional now, Fester.

//Repeatedly lying to the forum is your mo. It is rude and disrespectful, and you deserve to be called out for it.//

Accusations without specifics are just noise. Quote an actual “lie” or retract it.

//Um, wtf said the link showed prices falling. You repeated your "correlation is not causation" lie, acknowledging the data showed a rising price, so yes, you do contradict one another.//

Misrepresentation.

WTF referred to prices falling in the most recent period, which is correct. I referred to your earlier claim blaming renewables for rising prices over the long term. Those are separate timeframes, not contradictory statements.

//The information can be obtained. It is an accounting exercise, not statistical inference.//

Accounting can tell you what prices were. It cannot isolate how much of that change was due to renewables versus gas spikes, network upgrades, retail margins, or other factors without further analysis. That’s the point you keep skipping.

//Correlation is used to determine a relation between apparently unrelated things… In contrast, determining the cost of wind and solar is a matter or doing the sums, so it is not a correlation.//

You’re moving the goalposts.

The dispute wasn’t about the cost of building a wind farm. It was about your claim that historical retail price movements were caused by renewables. That’s exactly where correlation without causal analysis fails.

//You're an absolute shonk, John…//

More invective.

If you’ve got credible, sourced evidence showing renewables - not global fuel prices or other factors - directly drove retail prices up in Australia, post it.

Otherwise you’re just repeating the same assertion and hoping no one notices the gap.

Yawn. Time for a new subject. Nothing has changed. The same couple of darkened bedroom dwellers saying the same things, despite the fact that whatever posters said in their first reaction to this tedious topic, will be the same in their final post, with a bit of personal abuse thrown in because nobody agrees with them.

Meanwhile, the people responsible for the sky-rocketing electricity prices and telling lies about them don't give a FF about what anonymous key-board clowns think about anything.

It's notable that high energy carbon is also high in information due to the high number of bonds per atom and for relatively low weight compared for example to silicon. DNA is the way that information is passed between generations and is based on carbon chains. Lithium batteries have a much lower energy density than carbon chains as seen by the energy density table. If diamonds were used in cars, the fuel tank could be much smaller, and cars could have less wind resistance, and less metal. Solar panels have to have extremely large surface areas and don't have storage capability. Simplicity over complexity is a well founded engineering principle.

Its the same old playbook. Pick a subset of the data that tells you the story you want to hear and then pretend that that is the whole story. We saw it also with the discussion on the relative cost of renewables where the establishment costs and the decommissioning costs are ignored and then the claim is made that renewables are cheaper even as its easily shown that the countries with the highest levels of renewables have the highest levels of electricity costs.

And so here. The whole aim (at least the stated claim) of this kabuki theatre is to reduce emissions which it is claimed renewables do. Yet here's the data.... (million tonnes of CO2 equivalent)

China emissions 2015 13118.90 .... 2023 15943.99.... 21.5% INcrease
USA emissions 2015 6329.00 ..... 2023 5960.80 .... 5.8% DEcrease

It seems that the Chinese (swoon, genuflect, all praise St XI) are claiming to be climate saviours while merrily pumping out CO2e with abandon while the US (boo, hiss) who we all know are climate vandals are reducing their emissions without the need to trumpet their renewables efforts.

Now all of this assumes that any of these numbers are valid and I find it passingly amusing that so many people treat figures from Peking as reliable. Still it all we've got.

So how to account for this divergent outcomes. Well we could start by recognising that China manufactures these renewables using coal and oil which, of coarse, we are supposed to not notice. And we could also recognise that while China claims to care about the environment, their only concern is to use western green naivety to China's benefit.

When we see all these claimed Chinese renewables actually start to reduce their CO2e emissions, then we'll have something to discuss.

This is mere projection, mhaze.

//Its the same old playbook… renewables are cheaper even as its easily shown that the countries with the highest levels of renewables have the highest levels of electricity costs.//

You’re the one jumping between power-sector and economy-wide outcomes as it suits. Proper cost studies include capital, integration, transmission, and end-of-life. And “most renewables = highest prices” is cherry-picking - retail prices also reflect taxes, fuel import dependence, and network choices. It’s not causation.

//…here’s the data: ...//

Raw totals don’t tell the story.

China’s economy and industry grew massively in that span, so absolute emissions rose while its power sector carbon intensity fell and its clean share soared. The right comparisons are per-capita, per-GDP, or per-kWh. Using totals between such different economies is misleading.

//It seems the Chinese… claim to be climate saviours while the US reduces emissions without trumpeting renewables.//

Strawman.

No one here crowned China “saviour.” The point is simply the scale and speed of its clean build-out - wind and solar capacity rising by tens of percent annually, coal utilisation falling. That’s evidence of transition, not perfection.

//…numbers from Peking… amusing that people treat them as reliable.//

You can’t both cite Chinese figures to make your case and dismiss them as unreliable when inconvenient. Pick a standard and stick to it.

//China manufactures these renewables using coal and oil which, of course, we are supposed not to notice.//

Everyone notices it - that’s why cleaning the grid matters. Building a clean system with today’s fossil grid is temporary; once built, renewables run with negligible emissions. Transitional emissions don’t invalidate the long-term shift.

//When we see these renewables actually reduce China’s CO2e, then we’ll have something to discuss.//

They already do in the power sector.

Every MWh of wind or solar displaces fossil generation. National totals still rise because energy demand and exports are expanding, but that’s why analysts track intensity, not just raw tonnes. Judge electricity by electricity metrics - not whole-economy numbers that bundle steel, cement, transport and exports.

Ten points for effort, though.

We don't have an energy problem, we have an energy storage problem. The renewables swindle hasn't seemingly addressed this point. Most forms of energy are essentially solar energy- fissionables and heavy elements such as Uranium and Tunsten are created in supernova, all elements heavier than Hydrogen are created in main sequence stars, wind power is a form of solar energy, PV's use the light from stars, fusion power is the same energy source that stars use, hydrocarbon fuels are highly compressed organic material that grow using solar energy. If we had less people and more trees in the world there would be less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We need to look at those places on Earth that have the highest population and lowest technology.

It seems the point yet again went flying over JD's head. The entire rhetoric around renewables is the reduction in emissions. Yet when it can be shown that supposedly renewable champion China has massively increasing emissions while supposedly renewables enemy US has declining emissions, suddenly JD decides we need to look elsewhere.

Emissions are the only game in town, unless you're carrying water for the CCP.

"You can’t both cite Chinese figures to make your case and dismiss them as unreliable when inconvenient."

Why can't I. You just asserting I can't doesn't convince anyone, probably not even yourself. But not only can I, its clear its the only logical step. China's figures are numbers we have, and therefore the numbers we need to use. But those of us who can walk and chew gum simultaneously can use those figures while recognising their limitation. Of coarse those who slack-jawedly fall for every piece of CCP propaganda, won't get that.

The point is this. These are the numbers China gives the world. Yet even they show the cant around the whole Chinese renewables claims. Recognising that and also recognising that the real numbers probably show an even worse story, is the way mature analysis works.

"Judge electricity by electricity metrics "
Yes I get it. Cherry-pick the subset of data that tells the story you want to hear and pretend that all the other data doesn't exist. Concentrate on the tree with the most flowers and pretend to not notice that the forest is dying.

That’s a strawman, mhaze:

//The entire rhetoric around renewables is the reduction in emissions… China has massively increasing emissions while… US has declining emissions, suddenly JD decides we need to look elsewhere.//

No one said totals don’t matter. The point is that if you’re judging renewables in the power sector, you use sector metrics: carbon intensity, generation mix, coal utilisation. National totals also include steel, cement and exports, so they can rise even while electricity gets cleaner. Comparing China’s growing economy to US raw totals is misleading.

//Emissions are the only game in town, unless you're carrying water for the CCP.//

False dichotomy.

Emissions are the endpoint, but sector metrics are how you track progress toward them. That’s how serious analysis works.

//Why can't I. You just asserting I can't doesn't convince anyone… China's figures are numbers we have… But those of us who can walk and chew gum simultaneously can use those figures while recognising their limitation.//

It is not logical to both rely on figures when they suit you and dismiss them when they don’t. If they’re too unreliable when inconvenient, they’re too unreliable when convenient. Using them while discrediting them isn’t “walking and chewing gum,” it’s hedging both ways.

//These are the numbers China gives the world. Yet even they show the cant… Recognising that and also recognising that the real numbers probably show an even worse story, is the way mature analysis works.//

“Mature analysis” doesn’t rest on “probably.” Either evidence supports “worse,” or it doesn’t. The same data also show wind and solar surging and coal utilisation falling - signs of transition that contradict your narrative.

//That’s cherry-pick the tree with the most flowers and pretend not to notice that the forest is dying.//

Not cherry-picking - just using the right scope. If the claim is about renewables in electricity, judge electricity. If you want economy-wide conclusions, use per-capita, per-GDP, or intensity, not raw totals. A growing “forest” can still have a cleaner “tree.”

Perhaps the bad management of China's compliance of international climate management is just another symptom of the same bad faith ideologically compromised negotiation inherent in the drafting of the climate management plan in the first place. Another form of agiprop by Woke Marxist forces against the US and the West, to form a beachhead and replace them as the lingua franca ideology of the world.

As Machiavelli says Asia has always been much more authoritarian than Europe, and this is still true today. All governments are authoritarian to a point. Small governments sometimes implement extreme measures to control the population, but usually the population can vote with their feet. Large governments controlling large numbers of people can do much harm even with fairly moderate control actions. As Machivelli said Asia had a model firmly centred on the sovereign, whereas Europe's model was distributed through a hierarchy. Sadly in seeking alternative models of government to model the modern age, most turn to Asia without suspecting it's highly authoritarian nature... or maybe they do suspect and just want the power... and through denial and deception and chaos they can get what they want... and maybe Asia in their millenial/ thousand year battle with Europe will win. Irony, nature seems to favour small governments of self sufficient people, breeding stronger people, the ancient germanic people were seen as giants. Some ideologies talk about freeing the slaves while creating them.

Over time bad faith people corrupt even good systems. You can't assume the system controlling bad actors, without active constraint. When the good do nothing...

I see 1. the management of China, and 2. the creation of climate policy, in the above ideological context.

Climate policy was never meant to solve world climate, it was to solve the problem of the west. In a sense a battle between positive and negative freedom, Traditionalism and Marxism, Europe and Asia, between 'rule of law' and dictatorial rule, freedom and slavery, freedom and stability, etc. Some of these dualities are contradictory, but understanding the paired diads it's possible to get a picture of the landscape.

"It is not logical to both rely on figures when they suit you and dismiss them when they don’t."

Still misunderstanding I see. I'm not dismissing figures that don't suit. What figures have I dismissed? I'm saying the figures we have before us tell a sad story for those who blindly adhere to the renewables fable and if more honest figures were available they'd tell an even worse story. Somehow that seems too hard for you to fathom. But I can't dumb it down any further.

"“Mature analysis” doesn’t rest on “probably.” "

Wow. Just how little do you understand? Making educated guesses about incomplete data is what analysis is ALL about. If all the data is known and undisputed then there isn't analysis, just narrative.

Precisely CM.

I've written about this dichotomy between East and West previously on these pages. The West, the inheritor of Athenian and Roman notions of the individual and individual freedom verses the East's adherence to the sole ruler. The idea that Pericles would fully understand and appreciate the US Constitution while Sargon the Great would understand Hamas and Han Wudi would concur with Xi.

As to climate policy, it is clear that many in the climate community use AGW merely as a means to an end, the end being the overthrow of western capitalism. eg
Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the UN IPCC Working Group III in 2010: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.”

or

Patricia Espinosa, UNFCCC Executive Secretary in 2019: “Free-market capitalism must die if we are to meet the temperature targets. Let us be clear about that.”

That China and Russia fund and use climate groups as a means to weaken western structure is clear. Anyone familiar with how the USSR funded peace groups in the 1960's and 70s as part of their Cold War efforts, would recognise how climate groups are used, often willingly.

That’s hand-waving, mhaze:

//I’m not dismissing figures that don’t suit. What figures have I dismissed?... if more honest figures were available they'd tell an even worse story.//

Yes you are.

You call China’s figures propaganda when they show clean-energy progress — yet cite the same figures as proof renewables “don’t work.” That’s selective trust. Either they’re credible enough to use, or they’re not. You can’t both brand them propaganda and build your case on them.

//The figures we have before us tell a sad story… and if more honest figures were available they'd tell an even worse story.//

That’s an assumption dressed up as conclusion. Data should constrain analysis, not act as a springboard for “probably worse” storytelling. If you can only make your point by imagining figures that don’t exist, that’s not analysis — that’s speculation.

//Making educated guesses about incomplete data is what analysis is ALL about.//

No. Analysis weighs evidence against uncertainty. It doesn’t license you to assume the unknown automatically favours your position. An “educated guess” acknowledges limits; you’re treating limits as confirmation. That’s not analysis, it’s bias.

//If all the data is known and undisputed then there isn't analysis, just narrative.//

Wrong again.

Narrative is when you slot facts into a story without testing alternatives. Analysis is when you interrogate data, test competing explanations, and acknowledge uncertainty.

If “analysis” for you means always guessing in the direction of your own claims, that explains a lot.

It seems you also struggle with history, mhaze.

//The West, the inheritor of Athenian and Roman notions of the individual and individual freedom verses the East's adherence to the sole ruler.//

History doesn’t fit that cartoon.

Athens had slavery and no rights for women, Rome spent centuries as an empire under strongmen, and “the West” itself produced absolute monarchs and fascism. Meanwhile, “the East” includes traditions of pluralism and decentralisation - from Indian republics to Confucian checks on emperors.

Flattening 2,000 years of complexity into “West = liberty, East = tyranny” isn’t history, it’s a caricature.

//Edenhofer: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…”//

That’s one of the most cherry-picked lines in the denial playbook.

In context he was pointing out that all international agreements have distributional consequences - who pays, who benefits - not that climate policy is secretly communism.

//Espinosa: “Free-market capitalism must die…”//

Again, stripped of context. She was criticising a deregulated model that ignores climate costs, not calling for the abolition of markets altogether.

If your “evidence” relies on cartoons of history and quotes stripped of context, then it too explains a lot.

"Yes you are."

Oh well, if you say so! Just reciting your erroneous misunderstanding over and over doesn't improve it.

As to the broad ribbon of history, it seems JD is no better versed than he is as regards statistics. Perhaps one day we'll find something he does understand.

I don’t just say so, mhaze.

//Oh well, if you say so!//

I show so.

//Just reciting your erroneous misunderstanding over and over doesn't improve it.//

Of course not, that’s why I gave specific examples of you dismissing data as propaganda when it hurts your case, then leaning on the same data when you think it helps. That is selective trust. Simply waving it away with “erroneous misunderstanding” doesn’t make the contradiction vanish, it just shows you don’t want to touch it.

//As to the broad ribbon of history, it seems JD is no better versed than he is as regards statistics. Perhaps one day we'll find something he does understand.//

This is the clearest tell yet.

Not a single correction of what I wrote about Athens, Rome, monarchy, pluralism, or Confucian constraints. Not a single counter-source. Just a sneer. You’re hoping that by putting me down you can avoid addressing the fact that your “West = liberty, East = tyranny” narrative was a cartoon version of history.

This is a pattern:

- When your use of statistics is challenged, you fall back on “if we had more honest figures they’d prove me right.”

- When your selective quoting is exposed, you move on without acknowledgement.

- When your history gets corrected, you retreat into mockery.

It’s pure evasion. You dismiss what you can’t rebut, imagine data that doesn’t exist, and try to cover the gaps with insult.

If the strongest move left in your playbook is hoping people remember the tone of your sneer rather than the emptiness of your argument, then you’ve already conceded the point.

"I gave specific examples of you dismissing data "

What data did I dismiss that was detrimental to my case? Just asserting I dismissed it doesn't make it so.

"Not a single counter-source. "

Counter source? You didn't provide a single source.

"“if we had more honest figures they’d prove me right.”"

Still don't get, poor JD. If we had honest figures that make my point even stronger, although even the less accurate figures already prove my point. Not a difficult point I'd suggest, although, it seems, too difficult for JD.

The strategic detachment is a new approach, mhaze.

Let's see if it gets you the win you've been chasing for so long now...

//What data did I dismiss that was detrimental to my case?//

The Chinese energy stats.

When they show coal burning, you treat them as gospel. When they show clean-energy expansion, you dismiss them as propaganda. That’s not me asserting, that’s you switching trust depending on whether the numbers help or hurt. That’s textbook selective dismissal.

//Counter source? You didn't provide a single source.//

I corrected your cartoon history with facts: Athens had slavery, Rome had emperors, “the West” had monarchs and fascists, “the East” had pluralist traditions and checks on rulers. That’s history, not an opinion. You can call it “no source” if you like, but unless you’re claiming Athens didn’t have slaves or Rome wasn’t ruled by emperors, then you’re not disputing - you’re evading.

//…although even the less accurate figures already prove my point.//

They don’t.

They show that China is rapidly expanding renewables alongside coal, which undercuts your “renewables fable” narrative.

That’s why you’ve had to set it up so that the coal numbers are always “real” and renewables are always “propaganda.” And if renewables look big, you just assume the “honest” figures would show even more coal.

If your position can never be wrong by definition, then it can never be right by evidence either.

It’s a shell game and a bad faith manoeuvre.

"When they show coal burning, you treat them as gospel. When they show clean-energy expansion, you dismiss them as propaganda."

You're becoming increasing deranged here JD. I only mentioned coal as being part of the reason for their high emission. But I didn't treat those numbers as gospel. I specifically said they were probably wrong and understated. So not gospel. And I made no comment on the accuracy of their claims about renewables.

Try again.

Laughingly I point out that you offered no sources for your history claims and you assert that your assertions are the source. Sorry but that doesn't work.

That’s exactly the dodge I called out, mhaze.

//I only mentioned coal as being part of the reason for their high emission. But I didn't treat those numbers as gospel. I specifically said they were probably wrong and understated. So not gospel.//

“Probably wrong" and "understated” means you’ll only ever accept coal numbers as too low, never too high. That’s treating them as directionally reliable, which is the same thing as taking them as gospel when they suit you.

//And I made no comment on the accuracy of their claims about renewables.//

You didn’t nitpick decimals, but you dismissed the whole picture as a “fable.” That’s not silence, that’s rejection. Coal can only be “real or worse,” renewables can only be “illusory.” That’s the selective trust I pointed out.

//Laughingly I point out that you offered no sources for your history claims and you assert that your assertions are the source. Sorry but that doesn't work.//

This is pure hand-waving.

Unless you’re seriously saying Athens didn’t have slaves, Rome didn’t have emperors, or the West didn’t live under monarchs and fascists, then those aren’t “assertions.” They’re facts.

Your “no source” line is just another shell game to avoid engaging with them.

It's not looking like strategic detachment is a winner.

"you’ll only ever accept coal numbers as too low, never too high. "

But I never mentioned coal numbers. I was talking about emissions - CO2e. Yet as we've seen in the past, now that you've made this error, you'll defend it to the end and then sadly think you've prevailed. What a dill.

"Your “no source” line is just another shell game to avoid engaging with them."

You wanted me to show counter-sources, IMPLYING (/smile) that you'd provided sources. I'm just having fun pointing out that you have not provided such sources.

Athens etc....
I've had this argument so many times over the years with dills who think that pointing out Athens had slaves is a killer blow. So I really don't want to get too far down that rabbit hole again.

Still. Yes Athens had slaves. Lots in fact. Maybe as many as one-third of the population around 431BC were slaves. So yes, slaves. As did every other nation, city, polity and group on the planet at the time. And not just at that time but throughout all recorded history and probably before then, right up to the recent age of western dominance. Athens showed the world a society where every citizen was sacrosanct and had rights, even though not all inhabitants were citizens. And Rome and the west inherited that and built on it.

And yes, Rome had emperors and slaves. And yes, Middle Ages Europe had feudalism and born to rule kings. All true...and all utterly irrelevant as regards the point I and CM made. Being that the west is the fount of human freedom that the east doesn't understand.

Because while Athens and Rome and the Holy Roman Empire were flawed (and I look forward to you telling which society wasn't flawed) they were also the protectors of the gifts of western thought.

Ask why democracy is a western concept that only ever occurred organically in the west. Why human rights arose in the west. Why women's rights arose in the west. The Magna Carta. The Declaration of the Rights of Man. Why the notion of anti-slavery came from the west. These all came as gifts to the west from Athens and Rome and Christianity and while they were suppressed for large periods of time, they were still at the essence of the west.

We've had the discussion in these pages before, that the victory of the Athenians on the plains of Marathon, 2514 years ago both started and saved western culture.

Many people don't like western culture and think they are very sophisticated to deride it, while still living off its fruits. I'm not one of those.

You did lean on coal as the reason for those emissions, mhaze.

//But I never mentioned coal numbers. I was talking about emissions - CO2e.//

Pretending now that it was “only CO2e” is just a rebrand so you can call me a dill. It’s hair-splitting to avoid the point: coal stats were your evidence until they weren’t.

//You wanted me to show counter-sources, IMPLYING (/smile) that you'd provided sources. I'm just having fun pointing out that you have not provided such sources.//

And now you’ve conceded Athens had slaves, Rome had emperors, medieval Europe had kings. So the “no source” routine wasn’t about evidence at all - it was a stall until you could retreat into narrative.

//Still. Yes Athens had slaves. Lots in fact... And yes ... All true...and all utterly irrelevant as regards the point I and CM made. Being that the west is the fount of human freedom that the east doesn't understand.//

You admit every fact and then declare them irrelevant. Every contradiction becomes destiny. Slavery, emperors, feudalism, fascism - they don’t count, because in your telling they were just “temporary setbacks” on the road to freedom?

//Ask why democracy is a western concept... Why the notion of anti-slavery came from the west... These all came as gifts to the west from Athens and Rome and Christianity...//

This is mere canonisation. You’re not asking questions, you’re writing scripture: Marathon “saved Western culture,” slavery somehow proves the “gift of freedom,” every dark chapter is recast as evidence of virtue.

This is the shell game again: never wrong, because you can always rewrite the evidence as part of the myth - which is why your arguments collapse into mythology instead of history.

//Yet as we've seen in the past, now that you've made this error, you'll defend it to the end and then sadly think you've prevailed.//

Well, that prediction didn’t age well. Probably because there's no precedent.

But it's certainly a good example of textbook projection.

"coal stats were your evidence "

I didn't mention coal stats. Just making it up.
As I said..."now that you've made this error, you'll defend it to the end".

Your becoming toooo predictable.

Not “making it up,” mhaze.

//I didn't mention coal stats. Just making it up.//

You leaned on coal as the reason for the emissions. That’s why you’re now hair-splitting between “coal” and “CO2e.”

//As I said..."now that you've made this error, you'll defend it to the end".//

And here’s the script again: redefine the terms, call my clarification “defensiveness,” then declare your prophecy fulfilled. That’s not foresight, that’s a self-sealing trick.

…speaking of predictability.

//Your becoming toooo predictable.//

If “predictable” means catching you every time you swap definitions to stay “never wrong,” then yes - I’ll keep being predictable.

Better predictable than permanently evasive.

Yes, JD, just pure fabrication. I've never mentioned coal statistics. Never once. Frankly I'd need to research it to find out what they are and how reliable they are.

"That’s why you’re now hair-splitting between “coal” and “CO2e.”

Hairspliting. You carry on as though they are interchangeable data. All in your futile effort to try to hide your original error. I've never understood the mindset that prefers playing the clown to admitting error.

What we have here, if we go back to the beginning, is me providing statistics that showed that (1) JD's claims about China's environmental credentials were pure fantasy and (2) that renewables don't lead to reduced emissions. Since both of those are anathema to JD's worldview, he's been struggling ever since to find a way to deny the nose on his face.

That the only way he can do it is by misrepresenting what was said, we can see the quality of his opinion.

And even though he keeps claiming I relied on coal statistics, we can't help but notice that he can't back up that absurdity with a quote.

Not fabrication, mhaze.

You invoked coal as the driver of China’s emissions. That’s the link you leaned on. Whether you called it a “statistic” or “CO2e” is beside the point - it’s the evidentiary crutch you used until it got inconvenient.

//And even though he keeps claiming I relied on coal statistics, we can't help but notice that he can't back up that absurdity with a quote.//

Cute move: insist on the magic word “statistics” while ignoring that you did exactly what I said - pointed to coal to explain the emissions. If you want to pretend the difference between “coal share of energy” and “emissions from coal” absolves you, fine.

But that’s hair-splitting, not a rebuttal.

And the rest is just set dressing - “fantasy,” “clown,” “struggling.” That’s the performance. Strip the performance away, and all you’ve really said is: coal proves China’s emissions are bad, but when I call that selective, suddenly it was never about coal at all.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371593

Thanks mhaze for your comments, it's good to know that you see things similarly. It's good when your own independent analysis is convergent with others that you respect. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.

Thanks for the quotes and for the later very lucid comments (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371622).

Comment- John Daysh said "Flattening 2,000 years of complexity into “West = liberty, East = tyranny” isn’t history, it’s a caricature."

Answer- If you believe that one thing leads to another, and you haven't got the first, then you haven't got the second. Joseph Nye apparently puts the success of western society down to a handful of principles, including openness where appropriate. Machiavelli (1469-1527) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli) made the observation that Asian political model's were superior because they were more dictatorial, but then came the Reformation, the Renaisance, and the Enlightenment. It isn't me saying that Asia is dictatorial it's Machiavelli- doesn't mean it's not a caricature, but Daysh needs to do more than just say "It's a caricature!", at least to convince me over the lucid arguments that Machiavelli makes. There are a number of other principles from Asia, that seem to have conspired to tyranny. I believe that Asia would do well to adopt the home grown principles of Confucius (not the Confucius Institute), that was attacked in Asia, and some Asian countries, such as South Korea have, to their great success.

There are commentators that have talked about the failure of introducing western success principles and institutions to Asia.

Zealots preach before they teach... Listening to idiots can make you dumber.

I was thinking that Japan also seems to have a feeling of Confucianism and it turns out luckily to be correct as below...

From Search Assist AI-

Relationship Between Shinto and Confucianism
Overview of Shinto

Shinto is Japan's indigenous religion, focusing on kami (spirits) found in nature.
It emphasizes rituals and practices that connect people with these spirits.

Influence of Confucianism on Shinto

Confucianism began influencing Shinto during the Edo period (1603–1868).
Scholars like Yamazaki Ansai integrated Confucian ethics, such as filial piety and moral behavior, into Shinto beliefs.
This blend is known as Confucian Shinto or Juka Shintō.

Key Features of Confucian Shinto

It emphasizes ethical behavior and family values.
Popular among the samurai class, it helped reconcile their duties to the emperor with Confucian ideals.
Confucian Shinto also played a role in shaping modern Japanese nationalism and values during the Meiji Restoration.

Modern Developments

Contemporary groups influenced by Confucian Shinto include Shinto Taiseikyo and Shinto Shusei.
These organizations continue to reflect the integration of Confucian principles within Shinto practices.

In summary, while Shinto and Confucianism are distinct traditions, Confucianism has significantly influenced Shinto, particularly in ethical and social aspects.

It's been said that the three philosophical traditions of China's Middle Kingdom are Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism. Therefore to understand the mindset of China, and perhaps wider Asia, and how to create peace with Europe, it might be helpful to understand something about these traditions, and the fundamental assumptions of Asia.

CM,

I find Japan to be a fascinating case study in the mechanisms of ancestral memory. Its my view that peoples inherit their most basic political instincts from an early age. There is no overt attempt to instil democratic instincts or authoritarian instincts into the populace,. Yet over the generations it becomes the accepted norm.

I'm most familiar with the Russians, particularly around the time of the fall of the USSR and the eventual rise of Putin. Initially there was fervour around the idea of creating a democracy, but as, inevitably, hard times struck, the instinct and inherent impulses of the Russians was to look for a father and leader who would save them from the messiness of democracy. Enter Putin. Most Russians I'm still in contact with today are aware of their relative lack of freedom as compared with the west but see that as the price to pay for the stability of the Kremlin's somewhat benign authoritarianism.

Japan, similarly, had a tradition of central rule and lack of personal freedoms. Emperor worship was one aspect of that, as well as reverence for the warrior classes. Yet today, that ancestorial memory is all but eliminated.

When Japan was defeated in 1945, it wasn't just a military defeat. The entire society was rendered asunder, back to first principles. Suddenly the warrior class was utterly humiliated. The Emperor was no long aloof and unknowable and infallible. And the women, so long just adjuncts to their men, were now bread winners and vital to the workings of society. (One of my many books on the Beatles points out that a Yoko Ono figure was only possible because of 1945). And then democracy and western notions of personal freedom were overlayed and became the new norm for a society that no longer had norms.

Japan is now a firm and devoted democracy, recognising western values of the individual and personal freedom. A 1925 Japanese would be thoroughly confused by a 2025 Japanese whereas a 1925 Russian would entirely understand the political views of a 2025 Putin-phile.

Anyone who thinks that talking about emission levels is the exact equivalent of talking about "coal statistics" really doesn't deserve my attention.

Anyone whose so dishonest and so determined to not acknowledge error as to continue to claim they were right to make that equivalency won't get my attention.

Canem Malum and mhaze,

This is exactly what I meant by caricature. “Asia = tyranny, West = liberty” dressed up in Machiavelli quotes and “ancestral instincts” isn’t history, it’s essentialism.

- Machiavelli had scraps of second-hand info, not a framework for all of Asia.

- Japan didn’t suddenly discover democracy because its “ancestral memory was erased in 1945” - it had a democratic tradition in the Taisho era.

- And Russians didn’t “inherit” authoritarian instincts. They had weak institutions, massive shocks, and elites who benefited from re-centralisation. That’s politics, not genetics.

Flattening 2,000 years of social and political change into “East likes strongmen, West likes freedom” isn’t lucid analysis. It’s the very caricature I was pointing out.

mhaze,

Not “exact equivalent” - linked. You leaned on coal to explain emissions, and now you’re pretending it’s irrelevant because I didn’t recite the word statistics back at you.

That’s the pattern: evidence when it suits, disown it when pressed, then declare victory because the wording wasn’t precise enough.

And as for “not giving me your attention”… well, you just did.

Thanks mhaze for your comments. It sounds like I believe that there are still remnants of Confucianism in Japanese culture and you don't, that's ok. I'll keep a note of your view when I read and hopefully I'll be able to see through your eyes at some point. I've found the following book useful but the version I read was an old edition.

The Japanese Today- Edwin O. Reischauer
There seems to be a review here of the new version though I'm not sure it's as good as the old one.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674471849

Gustav Le Bon talked about western institutions in foreign cultures in his paper on The Crowd. It seems that Le Bon would say that Japan's culture was compatible, or became compatible, with western institutions, or at least a version of western institutions that look western from the outsite.

I believe that Confucianism is more similar to Catholic Hierarchical Subsidiarity than either Buddhism or Taoism. Confucianism sees society similarly through the hierarchical model, and believes in rule of law. I'm sure there are other similarities. Buddhism has links with Hinduism it seems, seemingly emphasizing the chaotic emotional nature of society.

In the movie Julius Caesar- from memory- Cleopatra says that Rome is logical, Egypt is emotional, Rome is sun, Egypt is moon, Rome is daylight, Egypt is twilight, Rome is masculine, Egypt is feminine. Rome could be seen as the ancient European West, and Egypt ancient Asia.

One of the difficulties with culture is it's more about relative differences than absolute ones. So society is characterised by a dynamic environment with moving goal posts. Some have used the perception of the practitioners as a way to create more objectivity.

Sorry for the related but slightly off topic sidebar- of "climate policy in the context of geopolitical history of conflict between Europe and Asia".

I see Marxism as compatible with Buddhism in a sense, and Marx was Hebrew a Middle 'Eastern' derived tradition. Of course, correlation doesn't prove causation, even if it implies it. Though Judaism probably has much in common with Zoroastrianism (universal monotheism vs pantheism) and perhaps predicts Mani too. (Perhaps it says something about the forces of integration vs independence.)

At the time Zoroastrianism was forming Europe was still pantheist as was China. Greece and China went through learning about philosophy at about the same period of 400BC, but it appears that this is where West and East diverged.

The alliance of Asian nations with either Buddhism or Confucianism seems to be the trigger that led either to Marxism or Democracy.

"In the movie Julius Caesar- from memory- Cleopatra says that Rome is logical,"

I think you'll find that's from Shakespeare. But it's not really accurate and reflects Elizabethan perceptions of Egypt as it was in the 16th century. In fact Cleopatra was Greek being the direct descendent of Ptolemy who was a Lieutenant of Alexander the Great who was in turn a disciple of Aristotle and through him a follower of Socrates and therefore Athenian philosophy. Wheels within wheels.

It was said that after Rome conquered Athens, Athens conquered Rome meaning that Rome adopted Athenian thought and philosophy or more accurately incorporated it into their weal.

But Shakespeare does accurately reflect the dichotomy between East and West, just that at that time of Cleopatra Egypt was more west then east. Herodotus, writing at the beginning of the beginning of the 5th century BC, made similar observations about the dichotomy.

Added to that is the fact that the Greeks were also in Judea for 300 years prior to Jesus and that their thinking imbued Christianity such that it became a combination of eastern monotheism and western philosophy. All of which combined to make the west what it became.

As to Zoroastrianism, there's every chance that it heavily influenced Jewish thinking during the period they were exiled in Babylon. Unfortunately for the world Zoroastrianism was effective neutered by Islam in the 8th century. A Zoroastrian Middle East would be a very different place than today's M-E.

Thanks mhaze for your comments, they covered some of my gaps over a bit.

I still think Japan embodies the west in very different ways than the way it's embodied throughout the western diaspora in terms of democracy, women, etc rightly or wrongly. I think it's good that Japan has embraced western principles on it's own terms ... somewhat. It can still be a fairly authoritarian place from a western perspective, but there is a check on the extremes of power due to the idea of "Family Japan". The West seems to be more patient with ideas such as 'creative destruction' than Japan, perhaps because of their relative sizes. The Keiretsu for example are seemingly still an important factor in Japan (some see this as a sign of socialism but I see business as more shackled to Shinto/ Confucist Traditionalism than Deng Marxism in this case- overall a good thing in my view).

I understand that Woke/ Marxism/ Maoism has made a significant play for hearts and minds in Japan in the last ten years, perhaps influenced by their scary neighbour.

Since JD was so anxious to verbal me into talking about "coal statistics" even though I'd never mentioned them, I thought I'd look into it.

"Global coal consumption in 2023 reached a record 8.7 billion tonnes (179 exajoules). China consumed 4.88 billion tonnes (91.94 exajoules), accounting for 56% of the global total. The United States consumed approximately 0.4 billion tonnes (8.2 exajoules), representing about 4.7% of global consumption"

China used 56% of the world's consumption of coal in 2023!!

No wonder their emissions are out of control.

Explain to me again how green-friendly China is.

mhaze,

Thank you for finally doing what you swore blind you hadn’t - using coal as your exhibit A for China’s emissions. You can call it “consumption” instead of “statistics” if it makes you feel better, but it’s exactly the link I pointed out.

And yes, China burns a lot of coal. No one’s denying that. What you omit - every time - is the other half of the ledger: they’ve also built more renewable capacity than the next several countries combined. Both facts are true. Pretending one cancels out the other is cherry-picking, not analysis.

So let’s be clear:

- You did lean on coal to make your point.
- I called out the selectivity.
- You denied ever doing it.
- And now here you are, posting coal numbers to prove… what, exactly?

//Explain to me again how green-friendly China is.//

Gladly: they’re neither eco-saints nor eco-villains. They’re burning record coal and deploying record renewables. That contradiction is the point - and the part you can’t seem to hold in your head at the same time.

Strip away the word games and we’re left with the same reality: China’s energy mix is contradictory - coal-heavy and renewable-heavy.

You only ever see one side at a time because the other undermines your argument.

"You did lean on coal to make your point."

If you say so JD. I did point out in my last post that I was only now looking at coal because of your constant whining about it. It seems that was too complex for you.

But you've made your ridiculous claims so often, I think you've actually come to believe them. So sad.

mhaze,

Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt on the emissions figures - you said yourself they might not be reliable. Fine.

But that doesn’t change the point: coal wasn’t something you “only now” looked at because of my “whining.” From the start you’ve treated coal as the pivot of your case.

On 16 August you wrote:

“Well we could start by recognising that China manufactures these renewables using coal and oil which, of course, we are supposed to not notice.”

That wasn’t a throwaway. It was central to your case for why China’s renewable buildout doesn’t count - just before shifting the goalposts:

"When we see all these claimed Chinese renewables actually start to reduce their CO2e emissions, then we'll have something to discuss."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371572

So whether or not you trusted the official stats, you were still leaning on coal days before you now claim you “only just” brought it up.

Actually, let’s go one step further, mhaze. Let’s even grant that you only just brought up coal this afternoon.

That still doesn’t save your post on the 16th.

Your argument then leaned on cherry-picked comparisons - holding up China’s rise in total emissions against America’s fall - while dismissing the very data that showed China’s unprecedented renewable build-out. And then you added an unnecessary hurdle: that we should only take renewables seriously if they already deliver a net fall in total emissions.

But that was never the point of the discussion.

The point was whether China is leading the world in building renewables - and it is, by every independent measure. You tried to wave that away by shifting the standard from “are they doing it?” to “have they already transformed their entire energy balance?” That’s goal-post moving, pure and simple.

So coal or no coal, the bigger problem remains: your own standard dodged the actual question at hand.

Thanks for helping to steer us back to that.

You said I used "coal statistics". I didn't. The end. You made the claim and then spent a week trying to find a way to not admit error. And failed.

My point about the emissions was that the reason for lauding renewables is that it reduces emissions. And clearly that's wrong, at least in the case of China. But that seems to be too hard for you to fathom.

I've been trying to work out if you're a joker or a knave. The I realised it doesn't matter

Aw, maze.

So now that you don't have your distraction anymore, you're going to take your ball and go home?

Sooky lala.

It's about performance for you, isn't it? Never substance.

Let's address this now, mhaze:

//My point about the emissions was that the reason for lauding renewables is that it reduces emissions. And clearly that's wrong, at least in the case of China.//

That’s a false test.

The point of renewables is to displace fossil generation. If energy demand is growing faster than clean build-out, total emissions can still rise, but they’re lower than they would have been without those renewables. That’s the difference between “slowing the increase” and “not making a difference.”

China’s electricity data show this directly: coal’s utilisation rate is falling, carbon intensity per kWh is dropping, and wind and solar are taking ever-larger shares of new generation. That’s renewables doing exactly what they’re supposed to.

By your logic, if China built zero renewables and its emissions were even higher, that would somehow make renewables look better. That’s absurd.

Lauding renewables isn’t about pretending totals have magically fallen overnight - it’s about recognising the transition under way, measured by intensity and capacity growth. Those numbers are unambiguous: China leads the world in renewable build-out, and its grid is getting cleaner because of it.

What say you, mhaze?

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif

Hi John,

The Trumpster is full of it!

"My point about the emissions was that the reason for lauding renewables is that it reduces emissions. And clearly that's wrong, at least in the case of China" That is such a dumb statement Trumpster.

It is like saying Man A and Man B having identical cars, Man A drives his car 5,000 km per year and consumes 500 lt of petrol, Man B drives his car 20,000 km per year and consumes 2,000 lt of petrol. Therefore Man A's car is 4 times more fuel efficient than Man B's car.

OR Trumpster could say, we should all be doing what the country of Palau is doing to reduce CO2 emissions, after all in 2022 Palau had one of the lowest rates of CO2 emissions in the world at 1.3 million tones, Australia on the other hand produced 393 million tones. What are we doing wrong? I know Trumpster will tell me, we should be following the example of Palau!

Here's some more statistics that you and your sidekick can misunderstand.

Wind and solar together accounted for about 17% of the U.S.'s large-scale power generating capacity in 2024 and provided 14% of total electricity produced.

Wind and solar made up about 37% of China's total installed power generation capacity by the end of 2024 and produced 18% of total electricity produced.

Its not much use installing all those renewables if it's so inefficient.

Just to help out poor innumerate Paul, when I was talking about emissions, I was comparing the changes in the US and China over time. China installing more renewables yet emissions going up. The US installing comparatively less but emissions gong down.

But I wouldn't feel too embarrassed Paul. The ramifications of that went over JD's head as well.

Your analogies were bang-on, Paul!
___

That’s not “inefficiency,” mhaze, it’s capacity factor.

//Wind and solar made up about 37% of China's total installed power generation capacity … and produced 18% of total electricity.//

Every energy source has one: coal and nuclear run near 70–85%, gas around 50%, wind and solar ~20–35%. That’s physics and operating profile, not failure. Calling it “inefficient” is like saying a bicycle is bad transport because it doesn’t carry bricks.

//Its not much use installing all those renewables if it's so inefficient.//

On the contrary, it’s useful because each MWh they generate displaces fossil power. China’s coal utilisation rate has been dropping for years - because of those renewables. The fact that demand is still growing doesn’t erase that contribution.

//China installing more renewables yet emissions going up. The US installing comparatively less but emissions going down.//

Cherry-picking again.

You’re comparing two countries with vastly different economic growth, industrial profiles, and baselines. The US has flat electricity demand and shifted off coal mostly to gas. China’s demand is exploding, yet its carbon intensity per kWh is falling thanks to renewables. That’s exactly what “success” looks like when you’re building at scale.

The “ramifications” you keep pointing to are just an optical illusion built on totals. Anyone serious about energy transition looks at intensity, mix, and trends. By those measures, China’s renewables aren’t “inefficient” - they’re historic.

You were more of an English person at school, weren't you?

Trumpster, what about Palau? BTW Palau, like many of the Pacific Islands have old diesel generators, and rely on imported oil to produce electricity. Palau per capita is the worlds highest producer of CO2 emissions. Power costs relative to wages is very high. In Fiji our "Family" was paying about FJ$60 a month for electricity, and they use bugger all power in the house.

Its an interesting hole JD and his innumerate sidekick have talked themselves into.

It used to be that we all thought that the main purpose of renewables and the like was to reduce the level of emissions that the alarmists keep telling us are going to destroy the planet 12 years from next Tuesday week. (Its always 12 years and has been for the past 30 years!!).

But in their anxiety to exonerate China of any duplicity, they are desperately seeking to find other reasons to install renewables. So the process is to look for some statistics that look favourable for China and then declare that that area was the real purpose for renewables. It doesn't much matter what this new purpose is and whether it makes the slightest sense, since the aim is to boost China, not be logical.

So here we are in Australia, madly installing renewables are economy destroying rates with the aim of getting to net-zero when all along according to our two Sinophiles the aim was.... well whatever makes China's numbers look good.

And this is how they think we save the planet!

mhaze,

The only “hole” here is the one you dug by insisting renewables don’t count unless China’s total emissions fall overnight.

//It used to be that we all thought that the main purpose of renewables and the like was to reduce the level of emissions…//

Still is. But you keep rewriting the test.

The purpose is to displace fossil generation and reduce carbon intensity in the power sector. That’s exactly what’s happening: coal utilisation down, renewables’ share up, emissions per kWh falling. That’s how every IEA pathway, every AEMO plan, every CSIRO scenario is framed.

//China installing more renewables yet emissions going up…//

That’s what happens when demand grows faster than even the world’s biggest clean buildout. The point isn’t that renewables are “useless” until totals fall, it’s that they’re lowering the emissions trajectory compared to where it would otherwise be.

Ignoring that is just arithmetic avoidance.

//So the process is to look for some statistics that look favourable for China…//

Projection again.

You cherry-picked totals to ignore intensity, ignored capacity factors, and ducked utilisation trends. Now, because those numbers cut against you, you switch to motives, “Sinophiles,” and “12 years from Tuesday.” That’s not analysis, that’s performance.

By your logic, China building zero renewables and having even higher emissions would make renewables look “better.”

That’s the absurdity of your standard - it collapses under its own weight.

Here's the thing that you either don't get or refuse to get and would refuse to admitting getting even if the lights miraculously came on... China builds gigantic amounts of windmills and solar panels using coal to do so. (Let's not even get into the emissions from concrete etc).

So what you want to do is look at a sliver of the process and swoon over that part, because its suits your Sinophilia. But when you look at the entire process that is required to construct these renewables that you want to swoon over, we find that, rather than reduce emissions, total nation-wide emissions rise dramatically. The numbers are there even if you don't want them to be.

But as I said, there's all sorts of reasons why you'll never acknowledge that.

"“Sinophiles,” and “12 years from Tuesday.” That’s not analysis, that’s performance."

No that's observation.

You’ve moved the posts again, mhaze.

//China builds gigantic amounts of windmills and solar panels using coal to do so… rather than reduce emissions, total nation-wide emissions rise dramatically.//

So now it’s not enough to judge renewables by how much fossil power they displace once running - you fold their construction into China’s current fossil-heavy economy so they “fail” by definition. By that standard, nothing passes until the entire global supply chain is already fossil-free. That’s a perfect circular trap: renewables can never “count” until the transition is already over.

And the irony?

By your logic, even coal plants wouldn’t “count,” since they’re also built with coal-fired steel and concrete. Gas plants too. Nuclear as well. Yet somehow the veto only ever lands on wind and solar.

That’s not a standard, it’s a double standard.

//So what you want to do is look at a sliver of the process and swoon over that part…//

No, I look at the operating data: carbon intensity per kWh, coal utilisation, renewable share. That’s how every credible energy body measures progress. You’re the one ignoring that “sliver” because it’s the part that contradicts your narrative.

//But as I said, there’s all sorts of reasons why you’ll never acknowledge that.//

That’s not an argument, it’s a pre-emptive excuse. A way of saying “if you don’t agree, that proves me right.” Self-sealing rhetoric, not evidence.

//No that’s observation.//

No, it’s theatre.

“Sinophiles” isn’t an observation, it’s a smear. “12 years from Tuesday” isn’t analysis, it’s a punchline. You’ve slipped from numbers into narrative because the numbers stopped working for you.

"You’ve moved the posts again, mhaze.

....

So now it’s not enough to judge renewables by how much fossil power they displace once running - you fold their construction into China’s current fossil-heavy economy so they “fail” by definition."

That's what I've been saying all along. Read my very first post in this thread. But you were so distraught by someone saying bad things about China and renewables (oh the humanity!!) that you failed to see the point. I've been saying from the outset that renewables need to be evaluated in relation to the entire economy. But things look bad for renewables if that's done, so you refuse to do it. Its the same thinking as the discussion over total power costs per country. It proved that renewables are the most expensive form of power and therefore you refused to see it.

So now you're saying I'm moving the goalposts when in fact I'm making the same argument I made from the outset while you've been flailing around for a week now trying to find a way to not not see the forest for the trees.

"By your logic, even coal plants wouldn’t “count,” since they’re also built with coal-fired steel and concrete. Gas plants too. Nuclear as well. Yet somehow the veto only ever lands on wind and solar."

Making up my views for me again, JD? Thanks but I can do that myself. I agree that nuclear needs to be evaluated based on the full cycle cost. I've made that point before. Ditto coal plants and gas plants and gerbils running on wheels. Its why I pointed to the economy-wide costs that you so want to not see. When evaluating which is cheaper the full costs need to be incorporated. But with renewables, the advocates for it just want to count the costs AFTER construction and BEFORE deconstruction. We all know why.

No, that’s the shift, mhaze.

//That’s what I’ve been saying all along… renewables need to be evaluated in relation to the entire economy.//

On 16 August you wrote:

“China emissions 2015… 2023… INcrease. USA… DEcrease. When we see all these claimed Chinese renewables actually start to reduce their CO2e emissions, then we'll have something to discuss.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371572

That’s not “whole economy” analysis. That’s cherry-picking totals to declare renewables meaningless.

Now, after a week of being pressed, the standard has morphed into “the entire economy and lifecycle costs.” That’s not consistency, it’s inflation of the goalposts.

//Its the same thinking as the discussion over total power costs per country… proved that renewables are the most expensive form of power.//

Yet again, cherry-picking.

You held up retail prices in high-tax, fuel-importing countries as “proof,” while ignoring that every credible GenCost and IEA report puts new wind and solar as the cheapest sources today. Those studies already factor in construction, transmission, and decommissioning. Pretending they don’t is just a way to keep declaring “hidden costs” without evidence.

//I agree that nuclear needs to be evaluated based on the full cycle cost. Ditto coal plants and gas plants…//

Then apply the standard evenly.

By your own test, all energy sources built in a fossil-heavy economy are “tainted” by construction emissions. Yet you only ever raise that veto when talking about wind and solar. If you were consistent, no source would “count” until the entire supply chain is fossil-free - which means, by your standard, no source can ever count until the transition is already complete.

That isn’t analysis, it’s a dead-end trap: a way of making sure renewables always “fail” no matter the data.

"“China emissions 2015… 2023… INcrease. USA… DEcrease. When we see all these claimed Chinese renewables actually start to reduce their CO2e emissions, then we'll have something to discuss.”

"That’s not “whole economy” analysis. "

Those figures were for the whole economy. If you didn't understand that, perhaps that explains why you've been floundering through this whole discussion.

mhaze,

No, quoting two raw totals isn’t “whole economy” analysis - it’s just citing numbers without context.

//China emissions 2015… 2023… increase. USA… decrease. When we see all these claimed Chinese renewables actually start to reduce their CO2e emissions, then we’ll have something to discuss.//

That’s not an evaluation of “the entire economy.” That’s a selective snapshot, stripped of the very factors a real whole-economy analysis would weigh:

China’s GDP growth and industrial expansion vs America’s flat demand.

Sectoral breakdowns (steel, cement, exports) that inflate China’s totals but aren’t electricity.

Intensity metrics (emissions per kWh, per capita, per unit of output).

Whole-economy analysis means asking why totals move - not just pointing at them and declaring “renewables don’t work.”

That’s the shift I’ve been calling out. Your opening wasn’t “economy-wide lifecycle costs,” it was “totals up, so case closed.” Only after that line collapsed did the standard balloon into “the entire economy” and “full lifecycle.”

Quoting raw totals does not equal whole-economy analysis. It never did.

Present alternative energy i.e. wind & solar can not produce steam, coal & nuclear do. Without steam there is no energy to run power plants to provide the electricity everybody & every industry demands.
99% of everything we consume is being transported by ships, many with with steam turbines & there are now close to two hundred nuclear powered merchant cargo ships on the seas apart from Navy/military vessels.
Germany is now dismantling many wind turbines as the folly became too obvious. The sooner the rort that is wind & solar is done away with the sooner more money can be freed up for clean energy.
Here's some info on shipping for those who want to stop using oil.
https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2024ch2_en.pdf

That’s simply wrong, Indyvidual.

//Without steam there is no energy to run power plants to provide the electricity everybody & every industry demands.//

Modern gas turbines, hydroelectric plants, wind, and solar PV all generate electricity without steam. Steam is one method, not the definition of energy.

//99% of everything we consume is being transported by ships… nearly 200 nuclear merchant ships…//

Close, but not quite.

Yes, shipping carries ~80-90% of trade by volume. But there are not “hundreds” of nuclear merchant vessels - there are fewer than 10 civilian nuclear-powered ships in operation worldwide, mostly Russian icebreakers. The rest are oil-fueled.

Your own link makes that plain.

//Germany is now dismantling many wind turbines as the folly became too obvious.//

Misleading.

Retiring old turbines at end-of-life is normal - and Germany has been replacing them with taller, more efficient models. Net wind capacity in Germany has been rising, not falling.

The “dismantling” story is cherry-picked spin.

//The sooner the rort that is wind & solar is done away with the sooner more money can be freed up for clean energy.//

Wind and solar are clean energy, and they’re the fastest-growing sources worldwide. In 2023 alone, China added more solar than Germany’s entire installed base. The IEA projects wind/solar to make up over 90% of new capacity through 2028.

So if you want to make the case against renewables, you’ll need something stronger than outdated talking points, misquotes, and claims your own source doesn’t support.

I’d say it’s time for a montage of your projection and theatrics, mhaze.

(Cue ‘80s music…)

- “Yes, JD, just pure fabrication.”
- “That the only way he can do it is by misrepresenting what was said, we can see the quality of his opinion.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371633

- “I’ve been trying to work out if you’re a joker or a knave. Then I realised it doesn’t matter.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371693

- “Here’s some more statistics that you and your sidekick can misunderstand.”
- “But I wouldn’t feel too embarrassed, Paul. The ramifications of that went over JD’s head as well.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371704

- “It’s an interesting hole JD and his innumerate sidekick have talked themselves into.”
- “And this is how they think we save the planet!”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371713

- “If you didn’t understand that, perhaps that explains why you’ve been floundering through this whole discussion.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371727

Heh. Looks even funnier in hindsight - especially stacked against the one thing missing from it all: evidence.

"(Cue ‘80s music…)"

Why?

When every knows all the best music was from the 60's and 70s.

Why the ’80s, mhaze?

Because that was the golden era of montages. Even spoofs today still use ’80s-style music for montages:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFrMLRQIT_k

Anyway, I’ll take this as a concession. It's closest thing to one I ever get from you.

The 80s? That was when the IBM sketch was made. John has made it the foundation of his life.

"I’ll take this as a concession"

JD claims victory in the same way the Black Knight claimed victory.

http://tiny.cc/epmr001

Nice one, mhaze.

But you’ve missed the obvious: the Black Knight thought he was winning because he refused to acknowledge losing an arm and a leg.

That’s not me here - it’s you, insisting that if we just ignore coal utilisation rates, carbon intensity, and capacity growth, somehow you’ve still got all your limbs.

Thanks for proving the sketch’s point better than I ever could.

"That’s not me here - it’s you,"

JD plays the "I know you are but what am I" card. I used to do that as well... but I stopped when I went into primary school

If this is the case, mhaze...

//JD plays the "I know you are but what am I" card. I used to do that as well... //

...then why am I able to make the same point by wording it entirely differently?
___

Nice try, mhaze.

But the Black Knight didn’t “win,” he just pretended his missing arms and legs weren’t gone. The parallel here is obvious: calling yourself victorious while ignoring coal utilisation, carbon intensity, and renewable growth isn’t analysis, it’s theatre.

In the end, you’re not disproving the sketch - you’re reenacting it.
___

Because it isn’t about substance for you, mhaze, it’s about deflection.

Steam is one method, not the definition of energy.
John Daysh,
It's the only clean one !

Wind and solar are clean energy, and they’re the fastest-growing sources worldwide.

Keep telling yourself that ! Then go & see the kids in the filthy mines & the underpaid in the solar factories & see if they agree with you.

Steam is just a medium, Indyvidual.

//It’s the only clean one!//

Coal, gas, nuclear, geothermal, solar thermal all use it. Calling it “the only clean one” doesn’t make sense.

//Go see the kids in the filthy mines & the underpaid in the solar factories…//

Yes, child labour in cobalt supply chains is a serious problem - and it’s being tackled through recycling, substitution, and traceable sourcing.

But let’s not pretend coal, oil, and gas are innocent. They carved their industries in an era when environmental and labour abuses were shrugged off as the cost of progress. Whole towns were sacrificed to black lung, mine collapses, child labour, and toxic rivers, and nobody expected those supply chains to be “clean,” so they never had to be.

Clean energy is different. It entered the market with sustainability as its core promise, so it’s held to a higher bar. And unlike fossil fuels, fixing its supply chains actually pays off, because once a panel or turbine is built, it runs for decades without further extraction. Fossil fuels never get that clean slate - the mine-to-smokestack damage repeats with every tonne and every barrel.

Nobody ever demanded coal or oil clean up their act. The damage is treated as the price of doing business. Nor does anyone expect them to. They're held to different standards - as you and mhaze have clearly demonstrated in this thread.

Thanks for the opportunity to point out this moral and ethical difference between the two sectors.

By your own standard, fossil fuels are the villain - not renewables. Somehow I don't think you'll be so concerned about child labour or filthy mines anymore, though.

Coal, gas, nuclear, geothermal, solar thermal all use it.
John Daysh,
Yes, but that's what you et al are against hence your pushing for alternative which it actually is not.

child labour in cobalt supply chains is a serious problem - and it’s being tackled through recycling, substitution, and traceable sourcing.
Really ? Not pushed as much as the highly profitable but ineffective filthy alternative energy rort though !

Wrong way around, Indyvidual.

//Yes, but that’s what you et al are against hence your pushing for alternative which it actually is not.//

Steam isn’t an “alternative” at all. Again, it’s just a medium.

Renewables that use steam (solar thermal, geothermal) aren’t somehow disqualified, and wind/solar PV generate directly without it. The “alternative” is the fuel, not the physics.

Theoretically, wind and solar could be rigged up to boil water and spin a turbine, but that would just add steps and make them less efficient.

//Not pushed as much as the highly profitable but ineffective filthy alternative energy rort though!//

Backwards again.

Fossil fuels got a century of free passes while their supply chains chewed through people and landscapes with barely a question. Renewables face far more scrutiny from day one because:

- they’re marketed as clean, so people expect higher standards, and
- they threaten vested interests who have every motive to magnify their flaws.

That’s why you see child-labour campaigns in cobalt mining and recycling programs for panels and batteries, but you can’t name a single global campaign that ever forced coal or oil to clean up their act.

So if your real concern is miners and supply chains, you’d want more renewables, not fewer - because at least they can be cleaned up.

Fossil fuels never will.

G'day John,

Just on steam, in my engineering learning days, I recall when talking about steam and indicated power, the class lecturer as a side question asked; What do you think the IP for a steam locomotive is? Around the class, 50%, 30%, 20% 15%, 60% maybe! Nah... said the lecturer ITS 4%!

Those were the good old days. I recall a chemistry lecturer, he liked a beer, and after class we would adjourn to the local for some practical chemistry. There, after a few schooners of practical taste testing, our teacher would say, "You know fellas, alcohol and water are almost the same thing...its just that alcohol has a bit of carbon in the mix." Hummm! but the affect is not quite the same.

john Daysh,
Amazing, so many words telling nothing !

I was surprised to learn that the average efficiency of the worlds coal fired power stations is only 33%, where as wind turbines have an efficiency of 40% to 50%, with an increase to 59% with new technology.

I like that steam loco stat, Paul, 4%!

Your chemistry story made me laugh too. "Alcohol’s just water with a bit of carbon" could almost be the deniers' next energy theory.

___

I'll take that reply as a concession, Indyvidual.

Filthy mines + Child labour + Fossil fuels = Good
Filthy mines + Child labour + Renewables = Bad

"they threaten vested interests who have every reason to magnify their flaws"

No John,

That is what people like you do by exaggerating the dangers of nuclear power, fossil fuels and climate change to ring as much from the renewable energy con as you can. Hopefully the coalition have the brains to ditch net zero and give the voters an alternative to economic suicide.

That’s projection, Fester:

//That is what people like you do by exaggerating the dangers of nuclear power, fossil fuels and climate change…//

I don’t exaggerate them. I cite the IEA, CSIRO, AEMO, WHO. Their findings are public, peer-reviewed, and widely accepted.

Meanwhile, your side has made a cottage industry out of exaggeration in the opposite direction: calling Net Zero “economic suicide,” branding renewables a “con,” or pretending Australia’s wholesale price drop didn’t happen. That’s not analysis, that’s slogan.

If you want to argue against renewables, do it on the numbers - costs, capacity, utilisation - not by dressing every transition as apocalypse.

Otherwise, your “alternative” is just the mirror image of what you claim to oppose.

The alternative energy industry is just like the beauty industry. It's all about presenting an unrealistic likeable image yet untrue side that hides the realties of the outfall & waste from it.
It also denies a lot of useful & workable & far less polluting infrastructure because of all the effort & costs wasted on it & its supporters.

Nice simile, Indyvidual, but it cuts the other way.

The “unrealistic likeable image” was always fossil fuels: cheap stickers on bills while the real costs were hidden in subsidies, pollution, and health impacts.

Renewables are the opposite. They’ve been scrutinised from day one, every cost and flaw magnified precisely because they’re pitched as clean.

And if you want to talk about “outfall & waste,” coal ash, oil spills, and gas leaks dwarf anything solar panels or turbines produce.

So if we’re sticking with your analogy, fossil fuels are the beauty industry - layers of makeup to hide the mess. Renewables are the first serious attempt to actually wash the face.

Just spotted this on the Net,

100 Million Pounds in comparison to how many Billions here ?

A new hydrogen combustion engine has received official approval for sale and use across Europe.
JCB has marked a major milestone in sustainable technology with the approval of its hydrogen combustion engine for commercial use across Europe.
The company, which has invested £100 million into the groundbreaking project, is the first in the construction industry to develop a fully operational hydrogen-powered engine. After three years of dedicated work by a team of 150 engineers, JCB has secured official certification from 11 European licensing authorities, including those in the UK, Germany, France, and Spain.
This approval paves the way for the commercial sale and deployment of hydrogen-powered construction and agricultural machinery, with additional countries expected to grant certification in 2025.
JCB Chairman Lord Bamford hailed this as a historic moment for the company and the industry, emphasizing hydrogen’s potential as a zero-emission solution for heavy equipment. Already, over 130 hydrogen-powered engines have been produced, powering JCB’s backhoe loaders, Loadall telescopic handlers, and generators.
These machines are undergoing real-world testing at customer sites, demonstrating the feasibility of hydrogen technology in demanding environments. With this significant regulatory approval, JCB is positioned at the forefront of the hydrogen revolution, setting a new standard for sustainable innovation in heavy machinery.

Renewables are the opposite. They’ve been scrutinised from day one, every cost and flaw magnified precisely because they’re pitched as clean.
John Daysh,
That is simply not true because the main issue has not yet arisen & that is how to dispose of all the junk !

It's absolutely true, Indyvidual.

//That is simply not true because the main issue has not yet arisen & that is how to dispose of all the junk!//

That “main issue” has already arisen. Solar panels, turbine blades, and batteries have been coming to end-of-life for years now - and recycling, reuse, and redesign programs are scaling up alongside them.

- Solar panels: Europe, Japan, and the US already have specialist recycling plants recovering silicon, silver, and glass.

- Blades: First-generation fiberglass blades are being repurposed for construction materials, and new designs are built with recyclable resins.

- Batteries: Cobalt and lithium recovery is expanding fast - in fact, recycled material is already feeding back into new production lines.

In other words, the “junk” you say is looming is exactly what the industry is building systems to handle. And unlike coal ash ponds, oil sludge, or mine tailings - which just pile up permanently - renewables’ waste is finite, traceable, and increasingly reusable.

So no, this isn’t some hidden Achilles’ heel. It’s a problem that’s already on the table, with solutions improving every year.

Thanks Indyvidual for giving us an update on hydrogen technology. At least hydrogen is it's own storage mechanism unlike renewables. And I like the self funded testing, rather than the tax based government incentivized renewables program.

Hydrogen has some issues though-

The key issues with hydrogen fuel is-
- low energy density- liquid hydrogen needs extremely cold temperatures, and high pressures- meaning thick and strong insulation- and even then has 1/4 the energy density of petrol. Could be mitigated through increased refueling cycles in some applications.
- low ignition temperature- but not as low as LPG from memory- which means that it is potentially difficult to burn safely.
- high flame temperature- 2000 degrees Celcius from memory- melts steel.
- Is lighter than air- could be dangerous in confined spaces without sufficient ventilation.
- Causes brittleness in metals from memory.
- Leaks through steel- causing high levels of leakage from storage vessels.

To be fair however hydrogen is one of the better ones in the renewables menu, in a sense.

Canem Malum,

On the contrary, hydrogen’s not one of the worst in the renewables menu. The only reason you lot are sympathetic to is because:

- it burns,
- it bangs,
- it leaks,
- it needs pipelines, pressure vessels, hard hats and hazard tape.

It just feels right, even if it’s wildly inefficient for most uses. Hydrogen is the one that still lets us blokes scratch our balls and grunt over combustion.

Meanwhile, quiet little solar panels just sit there saving you money and emissions… but that’s not nearly as sexy as taming fire with steel.

Let’s not confuse nostalgia and masculinity for a viable energy strategy.

John Daysh,
Not ever producing workable solutions is no solution ! With the resources wasted on Green Energy thus far we could have cleaned up the Planet by now.

Here is where it all comes down to the bottom line.
My system is a 1KW solar system facing almost due north.
Facing about 20 minutes west of due north.
It was installed in 2010.
In early January 2014 I measured its output as 500 watts.
My latest bill shows that from 28/5/25 to 27/8/25 92 days it
produced 43.78 Khwhrs for which I was paid $2.19 !
Nowhere near the traditional cup of coffee !

A couple of days ago a solar salesman rang me to sell a system.
I explained that my likelihood of being able to buy enough coffee
to make it worthwhile is close to zero. He hung up he knows its a con.

My son has a large flat roof on which he installed lots of solar cells.
He has a few large sealed lead acid batteries which he got
2nd hand for near enough for nothing.
He has since bought an electric car and it charges his car so $0!
The cost of replacing all those cells after 20 years will for most
like me be a dead loss.
There is one possibility, all those big solar farms will be replacing
their panels in 20 yrs so you might be able to fill your backyard
with them just for the taking.

Bezza,

What you’re describing isn’t “the bottom line on solar,” it’s the bottom line on a 1 kW system from 2010 limping along in 2025.

Modern systems are 6-10× bigger and twice as efficient.

Panels degrade at 0.5%/yr, not the 90% drop you’ve seen - so your issue looks like hardware failure, not proof that “solar is a con.”

Feed-in tariffs were never the main benefit. The real saving is avoided grid power, that’s why your son’s EV charges for “$0.”

Calling replacement at 20 years a “dead loss” ignores the 15-20 years of ROI already banked. I had solar installed last year (16 panels) and they've already paid for themselves. My plug-in hybrid car costs me less in fuel than my garden tools.

If anything, your son’s experience is the real “bottom line”: when sized right and self-consumed, solar + storage delivers massive value.

Your old system sounds more like a museum piece.

Hardly John and the loss is 50%. No more room on the roof for more panels.
It is the feed in tarrif that is the problem.
Even if there was no loss where could I get a cup of coffee for $2.56.
As perhaps you know they are planning on charging for the KWHr you
feed into the grid.
They want us to buy them coffee !

You’re still measuring with the wrong ruler, Bezza.

//It is the feed in tariff that is the problem… where could I get a cup of coffee for $2.56…//

Feed-in tariffs were always a bonus.

The real benefit is what you don’t buy from the grid. A modern 6-10 kW system saves thousands a year on bills - far more than a “cup of coffee” trickle-back. That’s why your son’s EV charges for “$0.”

//Hardly John and the loss is 50%…//

That’s still 100× worse than expected. Panels degrade about 0.5%/yr. If yours really lost 50%, that’s hardware failure, not normal solar. Holding up a broken 2010 system as “proof” solar doesn’t work is like holding up a busted Nokia flip phone to prove smartphones are a con.

//As perhaps you know they are planning on charging for the KWHr you feed into the grid.//

Yes, some networks are trialling export charges at peak times only. The idea is to encourage self-consumption and storage, because the grid isn’t a free infinite battery. But even under those rules, solar + batteries still comes out massively ahead.

The bottom line hasn’t changed: modern, functioning systems slash bills. Yours didn’t - not because “solar is a con,” but because it’s old, undersized, and clearly failing.

G'day John,

"because it’s old, undersized, and clearly failing." I believe we have a number of Old Farts on the Forum with that very problem!